And part of not making that too difficult is making new types IN specific by default. You need to argue for class agnostic.
You can always replicate a class specific type in a new class. You can’t go from class agnostic to class specific. -- Mark Andrews > On 11 Sep 2018, at 02:59, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: >> Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to >>> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale. >> >> this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS. however, it >> has also motivated me to define it well enough that we can create a >> global "CHAOS" system, with very different zone cuts, which seems like >> an idea bad enough to be good. > > This is not in any way an *urgent* consideration, but I do sometimes > wonder what we (or, y'know, our grandchildren) are going to do if we > ever run short of type codes. > > The obvious thing would be to expand into the CLASS field. Someone in > the future might be grateful if we avoid making that too difficult. > > -- > Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
